ok so to start with the title kind of sums it up. im looking on stepping up a little i currently have a d90, 18-200 vr2 lens 2 sb600's and i am currently deployed to the middle east and i am looking to move into portrait/wedding photography when i get home. that being said i am currently 274th on the list for the d7000 at bh and i am wondering if maybe i should just cancel the order and get some strobes (sb900s or qunatum trio maybe?) maybe a faster 2.8 lens? just looking to see what would be best i have the 1200 i spent on the d7000 and the money for the extended warranty plus about 700 a month to spend on gear. any help would be great as i come from a family of photographers, tetra images, but they are stock and are a different realm than me.

I am not sure that more flashes are going to help with wedding photography and you will almost most certainly need a faster lens. I think many people recommend the 70-200 f2.8, but that is out of the $1200 range. The D90 would be a capable camera, but with the budget I think you would be better off getting some faster glass if you are serious about the wedding photography. IMO it won't really put you ahead to get the new body and still have the 18-200 as much as it would to keep the D90 and get a faster lens or two.

Edit: miss the portrait part. Either way still need the faster lens, but the SB800-900 might be nice to have also.

Here's my take. I would keep the D90 and cancel the D7K and get a f1.8 85mm prime and get two or three strobes - using one as a Commander is a godsend (and some strobe tools, too)

You could get the Zoom (it would be great to have and handy)! And I would certainly put it high and the need's list, but the 'low light lens' and 'strobes' you need are necessary to have on the top, too.

The 85 and the strobes give you what you have to have now, you just have to move more.

Don't know much about portrait/wedding photography, but I also say faster glass. I'd start off with the 35mm 1.8G, then get something longer, like an 85mm or 105mm DC. If you don't like the idea of switching lenses a lot, then I'd probably save up for a 70-200, or possibly even the 80-200 AF-D (still selling new for around $1,000), which is optically the same, but missing some of the newest features.

ok so i forgot i do have the 85mm lens from my dads camera, sorry and i have the 75-300 vr ? i think that's what it is since my brother just said he's sending his longer lens. and i got the commander i think its the su-200? problem is the ir triggering is kind of lame with it but i have had succuss with using the built in flash in comander modde. im looking at better glass now, anythoughts on on fx lenses on a dx body? im still open to anything you guys have for ideas. thanks tons!!!

bmxmarine said:
ok so i forgot i do have the 85mm lens from my dads camera, sorry and i have the 75-300 vr ? i think that's what it is since my brother just said he's sending his longer lens. and i got the commander i think its the su-200? problem is the ir triggering is kind of lame with it but i have had succuss with using the built in flash in comander modde. im looking at better glass now, anythoughts on on fx lenses on a dx body? im still open to anything you guys have for ideas. thanks tons!!!

No problem with FX lenses on DX bodies. They usually cost more, but are good to have if you ever switch to full frame. Using a DX camera, I don't even look to see if they are one or the other because it doesn't matter. What version of the 85 is that? You might be able to find a used Nikon 24-70 f2.8 in your budget range. I would just say all around the kit lenses aren't really going to cut it for the portraits. If nothing else because they don't have the ability to single out the subjects.

ill look to see what 83mm it is but im thinking its older, it has manual aperature adjustment but i will check when i get back today. im also worried about getting the sb900 with all the over heating problems i read about but i don't think ill be machine gun strobing it like some do. im thinking before i go to far i should also get some stands and umbrellas? thanks again

save a little bit and get faster glass, this will help You more than any new body. I would opt for N24-70 as it's more useful than 70-200 during weddings, or look for a used 17-55 2.8 or get a new 16-85vr (although the last one might be a little to dark).

I personally don't see how anyone could shoot a prime during a wedding or reception unless it was on a separate body. You could use one during a portrait session of a wedding, but I would be afraid to miss a shot while switching lenses.

tcole1983 said:
No problem with FX lenses on DX bodies. They usually cost more, but are good to have if you ever switch to full frame. Using a DX camera, I don't even look to see if they are one or the other because it doesn't matter. What version of the 85 is that? You might be able to find a used Nikon 24-70 f2.8 in your budget range. I would just say all around the kit lenses aren't really going to cut it for the portraits. If nothing else because they don't have the ability to single out the subjects.

Personally the 24-70 is a better range for portraits. The 17-55 is too wide and then not long enough. Just for reference I took a picture of 16 people standing loosely together and it was shot at 26 mm on a DX body.